Do I have to explain this to you, really?
Yes - because you are making completely unsubstantiated claims.
If you read my response in context ...
I did and my conclusion is the obvious one.
... it should say 'A fairer way from the one you propose would be',
But you didn't - my comment was made on the basis of what you actually wrote, rather than what you claimed you might have said when you original comment was challenged. Stop moving the goalposts - and also accept that I can't be accused of quote mining when I was using your exact words and in context, rather than words you actually didn't say but claim now, in retrospect that you could have.
of course you have ignored the context and you can now claim ya boo sucks victory.
No I haven't - the discussion was on the fairest way to deal with the issue that no-one has actually voted for any specific brexit deal. You said that the '[a] fair way of doing it would be a straight in / out vote and followed by a vote on the terms.' Given that we have already had the in/out referendum, then the clear inference is that you think we should now have a second referendum (or rather should have when there is a deal on the table) on the negotiated deal. Or do you think we shouldn't do something fair? That seems to be the only other explanation - that you think a second referendum is fair but you have no interest in doing the fair thing.
You lost the vote might be time to change tact.
Oh dear - lose the argument and resort to a slightly more polite version of the 'yah, boo, you lost, get over it - remoaner, remoaner' chant of the more unreconstructed brexiters.
Indeed the 2016 vote is now in the past, we now the result - the advisory referendum gives a mandate to negotiate a brexit deal. It provides no mandate whatsoever to implement any specific brexit deal, because no one has voted on it. Nor can we be sure that in 2018, 2019 or 2020 or whenever the deal would actually be implemented that the negotiated deal would have a greater mandate than remaining in the EU.
Hence in 2018, 2019 or 2020, when the deal is negotiated and clear (i.e. can be implemented) and at the point when implementation is imminent (say 3 months before implementation) there should be a second referendum with two clear, unambiguous and deliverable options - brexit on the basis of the negotiated deal, or remain in the EU. I'd be happy for that second referendum to be binding, given that it would involve two options that were completely clear and implementable.